Well I am not sure I understand ALL of that but somehow it rings true.
I was born in WWII and therefore I carry all the values, memories and experiences that have occurred since that time. Everything, government, police, schools, universities, media, sport right now seem mad, out of kilter, unfair, dishonest and, in some cases, wicked.
I simply KNOW that things are morally wrong and that we as individuals must speak up, as you have, Mr. Wright.
I share your feelings and I've been waiting a long ftime for a thinker/cmmentator/writer able to articulate our actual experience and real situation. This is a way out of our bewilderment . As someone commented on the video clip of Frank being interviewed in the street " There are geniuses just walking around out there". Now this voice of sanity has a platform and alliance with competent political activists. At last, hope for survival.
And boy does Britain need an enema. We need you back to what you were bc what we see now is frightening. Just look at the mayor of London. What a wanker.
This is a good focus on what has gone wrong with our country. We need to have a spiritual reawakening because the drop off in religious attendance has created a vacuum into which the woke dogma has entered and now subsumes so many.
As a practising Catholic (although raised in the Anglican church), I believe that the Roman Catholic church is still adhering to its traditions and rites and has not been unduly influenced by modern trends. It is also acting as a bastion against Islam and creeping Islamisation in Western Europe. I am not at all impressed with the current Pope, Leo XIV and his liberal progressive agenda, particularly as regards migration, and the Trump administration is right to call him out on this issue.
I think I must paywall some things to repay my subscribers. When I do that, I include a message to those who cannot pay to request a free subscription by sending me a brief note with "SKINT" in the header, via email at frankwrighter@pm.me
Thank you too BI, I try to do right and sometimes get it wrong.
Thank you Doc. I thought it best to drop it at the moment as it seems shameful to not do so given my recent exposure. Hopefully it will all blow over soon lol.
Humanity is in a war and only 0.1% of people can see it; as most can’t recognise the weapons being used. Media and the internet are digital gate keepers and spies; 5G is a pheric soldier; Vaccines are assassins; Visas and passports are wolves; Inflation a thief; Mortgages and supermarkets are leveraged darts. The world we were born into no longer exists. It is exponentially increasing with lies, deceit, debauchery, mind control, nonsense, meaninglessness and demonic entities. There is a hyper normalization of insanity. A constant creation of subconscious inner demoralisation. The West finds itself today in a soulless collectivistic and materialistic phase corresponding to the closing cycle of a civilisation. If you don’t want to end up eating bugs and owning nothing and being happy in your AI-monitored 15-minute city while you wait for your social-credit app to update your vaccination record so you can access your CBDC account and make another minimum payment on your ever-deepening credit-card debt, it is best to understand what is happening. (* Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go use ChatGPT to write a shopping list for my smart fridge so it can order some food to be delivered by drone while I ask Google Gemini to explain Tony Blair’s recommendations on embedding AI in the British civil service so that the NHS can become more efficient by using a chatbot to diagnose anxiety and alienation. {1984today@substack.com ~ The Weekly Weird #55 ~ Mike Freedman}).
Thank you for the latest thoughts Frank. I’d like to add also, and to get your thoughts on the influence of Frederick Taylor and the effect of Taylorism. His book or manual I suppose, The Principles of Scientific Management, removed man as the central focus of society and our ability to stay grounded, I suppose. When Taylor produced his thesis, man was no longer at the centre. The system replaced him and that was and is still the focal point. Put to extreme utility by Henry Ford.
The Illuminati was formed in 1776, a secret society with limitless financial resources and dedicated to a programme of world domination. In 1782, at the Congress of Wilhelmsbad, an alliance between the Illuminati and Freemasonry was sealed. Shortly after, the general ban was lifted that prevented Jews from joining the Masons; the headquarters of Masonry were moved to Frankfurt, the stronghold of Jewish finance. Judaism and Masonry, soon to be joined by a third, the Church of Mormon - and aided by the official Vatican - plunged ahead in the preparation of a new Kingdom on earth: the Kingdom of the antichrist, antiman, antibuddha, antimohamed. The aims of the Illuminati were set down as follows: (1) Abolition of all ordered governments; (2) Abolition of private property; (3) Abolition of inheritance; (4) Abolition of all religion; (5) Abolition of family; (6) Creation of a New World Order or World Government.
The Illuminati quickly realized that the old power structures must be eradicated, and in 1871 devised a sequence of three World Wars in the twentieth century that would change the face of Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world. The remarkable thing is that these World Wars came in the sequence in which they were predicted, the first to destroy Czarist Russia; the second by capitalizing on the differences between German Nationalists and political Zionists; and the third which is to result from the manipulation of the differences between Zionists and Arabs. In 'The New World Order and the Throne of the Antichrist' Des Griffin has shown that in the Second World War Roosevelt and Eisenhower repeatedly held back the advance of the American troops to allow the capital cities of central Europe to fall into Soviet hands: Prague, Budapest, Vienna, Berlin, etc. Meanwhile, a number of non-military but strategic industrial targets Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, and a host of other Japanese cities were levelled, the chief reason being that the International Bankers and Financiers wanted to use the military power of the Allies to level these cities so that they could rebuild them after the War to their own image and likeness. The three main Illuminati families are Rothschild in Europe, Rockefeller in the United States, and a Canadian family - actually five families operating as one - that is known but which has not yet been named publicly. The Canadian families are not Jewish.
The plans for those world wars were described in detail in a series of letters between Freemason Albert Pike and Guiseppe Mazzoni in about 1870 or 1871. They described WWI and WWII in such detail that the letters were considered fakes written after the events.
However, the letters were available to public viewing in the British Museum (I think) until about 1979.
Generational planning. And that's why all the salami slice erosions of freedoms now (e.g., 9/11, intrusive searches at airports; mass shooting in New Zealand, gun ban; ditto UK; trucker protest Canada, bank accounts frozen and CBDCs on the way) may seem a legitimate to whatever threat at the time, but I suspect that as the NWO stomps its jackboot on your face it will be able to do so precisely because we have no means to fight back.
Having first come across you through the ten-minute viral clip from the Restore rally, I initially assumed I was watching another angry internet personality. The clip, however, resonated enough for me to watch your interview with Peter McCormack and then spend some time reading your articles, particularly The Technique of Revolution.
To my own surprise, I find myself agreeing with perhaps 90% of your diagnosis of modern political and social life. The hollowing out of institutions, the century of sales, consumerism, the loss of meaning, the weakening of community and the inability of our elites to speak honestly about what is happening all strike me as real phenomena rather than inventions.
It is precisely because I find much of your diagnosis compelling that I feel obliged to ask some questions.
Your viral clip has placed you front and centre. Whether intentionally or not, you are increasingly becoming one of the public voices associated with the wider Restore coalition. With that influence comes some responsibility for what happens next. As someone who is broadly sympathetic to many of the concerns being raised, but who remains deeply uneasy about some possible downstream consequences, I think these questions are worth asking.
Firstly, I wonder whether you are deliberately conflating progressivism with classical liberalism. In your writing and in the McCormack interview, liberalism, consumerism and progressivism often appear as manifestations of a single revolutionary process. Yet my own understanding is that contemporary progressivism owes much more to postmodern and critical theories than to classical liberalism. Indeed, many critics of modern progressivism appeal precisely to classical liberal principles in opposition to it. Is this conflation intentional, or do you genuinely see no meaningful distinction between the two traditions?
Secondly, you frequently speak of man as possessing an essential and unchanging nature. I understand this in relation to questions of biological sex, where an essentialist position appears coherent, but when extended to humanity in general I become less certain. Human beings today are physically different from previous generations, live considerably longer, and anthropologically have changed enormously. Is your position primarily theological, rooted in Catholic thought, or are there other philosophers and traditions which have shaped this understanding? More fundamentally, what exactly remains fixed?
Thirdly, despite your hostility towards Marxism, I cannot help noticing that much of your analysis appears structurally Marxian. Marx saw false consciousness produced by capitalism and a conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Your analysis sees false consciousness produced by liberal consumerism and a conflict between elites and ordinary people. The conclusions differ, but the explanatory grammar feels surprisingly similar. Is that resemblance merely superficial, or do you consciously acknowledge some debt to that mode of analysis?
Fourthly, in your interview with Peter McCormack, I was struck by your clear rejection of violence and vigilantism. I found that reassuring. Yet politics does not end with our own intentions. Even if I do not regard you as racist, and I do not, it seems uncontroversial that some elements within the wider coalition attracted to Restore hold views that are overtly racial or extremist. Given the existential language often employed about civilisational collapse and betrayal, how do you think about responsibility for possible downstream consequences? How do you distinguish between legitimate warnings and rhetoric which might inadvertently licence more destructive tendencies in others?
Fifthly, I find myself wrestling with the question of agency. Much of your work implies that ordinary people have been seduced by the century of sales and trapped within a false consciousness created by consumer liberalism. But what if millions of people are simply acting out their preferences? What if they genuinely want Amazon deliveries, cheap imports, convenience and the freedoms that accompany modern life? To what extent are people victims of systems, and to what extent are they suffering the consequences of their own choices? And if the problem partly resides in human beings themselves rather than the structures surrounding them, why should we expect changing those structures to produce fundamentally different outcomes?
Sixthly, you often argue that under liberalism our rights amount to whatever the liberal elite says they are. Fair enough. But given your evident Catholic commitments, I wonder what replaces that arrangement. Is the answer ultimately that society should ground itself in Catholic moral teaching? If so, why should the authority of the Church be regarded as less coercive or more legitimate than the authority exercised by liberal institutions? One of the historical achievements of liberalism, rightly or wrongly, was partly to free society from ecclesiastical domination. Why is replacing one moral authority with another not simply exchanging one form of suppression for another?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you quoted Augustine in your conversation with Peter McCormack. That caught my attention. Yet Augustine's anthropology strikes me as considerably darker and more symmetrical than much modern political thought. Augustine seems to locate corruption not principally in institutions, ideologies or elites, but within man himself. He appears to deny innocence to everyone. If that is true, then liberalism may simply be one manifestation of a deeper and more universal human condition.
If Augustine is right, then perhaps no amount of law and order, immigration policy, moral exhortation or even religious restoration can ultimately deliver us from ourselves. We may create better and worse arrangements, but not innocent ones.
I ask these questions not as a hostile critic, but because I suspect many prospective Restore supporters are asking themselves similar things.
You have largely convinced me that something has gone badly wrong.
Your classical liberalism is just a part and yet another stage of the problem, i.e the dissolution of western Christian civilisation that started as far back as the middle ages with the nominalists and their attack on realist or universalist metaphysics. Before a revolution becomes social and cultural it must first be metaphysical and spiritual/religious. A book like that of Richard Weaver " ideas have consequences " can be a starting point to explore this subject.
Thank you for the response and the recommendation. I had never heard of Weaver, so I have been trying to get my head around the broad shape of the argument.
As I understand it, the claim is that the real mistake was made with the nominalists and that everything after that is basically the working out of that error. Fair enough, but that raises a few questions.
Firstly, does that really mean that everything since Ockham has just been one long decline? Have there genuinely been no improvements to the conditions of ordinary people's lives along the way? If there have been, why wouldn't we identify particular wrong turns rather than conclude that leaving home in the first place was the mistake?
Secondly, what if the nominalists were right? What if the problem isn't that we abandoned essential truth, but that there never was some metaphysical scaffolding holding everything together in the first place? In that case, perhaps the issue isn't false consciousness or corruption of reality, but simply that human beings are trying to create meaning and value for themselves and, being human, we are a bit shit at it.
Thirdly, why are we assuming that people before nominalism lived spiritually richer lives? The idea of a stable moral order strikes me as possibly a bit mythical. Most people lived hard lives of labour, disease and insecurity, and if they seriously questioned the prevailing order the consequences could be severe. From ground level, how do we know they were more fulfilled rather than simply more unified?
I suppose my underlying question is whether modernity is best understood as one long story of decline, or whether every age solves some problems, creates others and leaves the next generation trying to sort out the consequences.
I would suggest that you find a fundamental issue with the current Institutions, go confront them, get completely destroyed like me, get everything taken from you even those that you love, and then that which really matters in your heart will become very very clear.
Well I am not sure I understand ALL of that but somehow it rings true.
I was born in WWII and therefore I carry all the values, memories and experiences that have occurred since that time. Everything, government, police, schools, universities, media, sport right now seem mad, out of kilter, unfair, dishonest and, in some cases, wicked.
I simply KNOW that things are morally wrong and that we as individuals must speak up, as you have, Mr. Wright.
I am placing a lot of faith in Restore Britain.
I share your feelings and I've been waiting a long ftime for a thinker/cmmentator/writer able to articulate our actual experience and real situation. This is a way out of our bewilderment . As someone commented on the video clip of Frank being interviewed in the street " There are geniuses just walking around out there". Now this voice of sanity has a platform and alliance with competent political activists. At last, hope for survival.
And boy does Britain need an enema. We need you back to what you were bc what we see now is frightening. Just look at the mayor of London. What a wanker.
Dear Roy…you understand very well, do not underestimate your own intelligence. Blessings to you and those you love. From Aus.
This is a good focus on what has gone wrong with our country. We need to have a spiritual reawakening because the drop off in religious attendance has created a vacuum into which the woke dogma has entered and now subsumes so many.
As a practising Catholic (although raised in the Anglican church), I believe that the Roman Catholic church is still adhering to its traditions and rites and has not been unduly influenced by modern trends. It is also acting as a bastion against Islam and creeping Islamisation in Western Europe. I am not at all impressed with the current Pope, Leo XIV and his liberal progressive agenda, particularly as regards migration, and the Trump administration is right to call him out on this issue.
Pope Leo sux, libtard that he is.
There are no atheists. Just those who don't understand what they worship.
Banger
Thank you for releasing more full form free content in this current time
I think I must paywall some things to repay my subscribers. When I do that, I include a message to those who cannot pay to request a free subscription by sending me a brief note with "SKINT" in the header, via email at frankwrighter@pm.me
Thank you too BI, I try to do right and sometimes get it wrong.
As a paid subscriber, I have no objections to dropping the pay wall. Your writings are spot-on and I feel that they should be widely shared.
Thank you Doc. I thought it best to drop it at the moment as it seems shameful to not do so given my recent exposure. Hopefully it will all blow over soon lol.
It is very helpful to hear this. Thank you.
Let's hope it doesn't blow over! See what happens when you grow a mustache. It's no coincidence.
Thank you for this exceptional essay.
You are welcome Helen. I am glad you found it worth your time.
Humanity is in a war and only 0.1% of people can see it; as most can’t recognise the weapons being used. Media and the internet are digital gate keepers and spies; 5G is a pheric soldier; Vaccines are assassins; Visas and passports are wolves; Inflation a thief; Mortgages and supermarkets are leveraged darts. The world we were born into no longer exists. It is exponentially increasing with lies, deceit, debauchery, mind control, nonsense, meaninglessness and demonic entities. There is a hyper normalization of insanity. A constant creation of subconscious inner demoralisation. The West finds itself today in a soulless collectivistic and materialistic phase corresponding to the closing cycle of a civilisation. If you don’t want to end up eating bugs and owning nothing and being happy in your AI-monitored 15-minute city while you wait for your social-credit app to update your vaccination record so you can access your CBDC account and make another minimum payment on your ever-deepening credit-card debt, it is best to understand what is happening. (* Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go use ChatGPT to write a shopping list for my smart fridge so it can order some food to be delivered by drone while I ask Google Gemini to explain Tony Blair’s recommendations on embedding AI in the British civil service so that the NHS can become more efficient by using a chatbot to diagnose anxiety and alienation. {1984today@substack.com ~ The Weekly Weird #55 ~ Mike Freedman}).
BOOM!
Thank you for the latest thoughts Frank. I’d like to add also, and to get your thoughts on the influence of Frederick Taylor and the effect of Taylorism. His book or manual I suppose, The Principles of Scientific Management, removed man as the central focus of society and our ability to stay grounded, I suppose. When Taylor produced his thesis, man was no longer at the centre. The system replaced him and that was and is still the focal point. Put to extreme utility by Henry Ford.
The Illuminati was formed in 1776, a secret society with limitless financial resources and dedicated to a programme of world domination. In 1782, at the Congress of Wilhelmsbad, an alliance between the Illuminati and Freemasonry was sealed. Shortly after, the general ban was lifted that prevented Jews from joining the Masons; the headquarters of Masonry were moved to Frankfurt, the stronghold of Jewish finance. Judaism and Masonry, soon to be joined by a third, the Church of Mormon - and aided by the official Vatican - plunged ahead in the preparation of a new Kingdom on earth: the Kingdom of the antichrist, antiman, antibuddha, antimohamed. The aims of the Illuminati were set down as follows: (1) Abolition of all ordered governments; (2) Abolition of private property; (3) Abolition of inheritance; (4) Abolition of all religion; (5) Abolition of family; (6) Creation of a New World Order or World Government.
The Illuminati quickly realized that the old power structures must be eradicated, and in 1871 devised a sequence of three World Wars in the twentieth century that would change the face of Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world. The remarkable thing is that these World Wars came in the sequence in which they were predicted, the first to destroy Czarist Russia; the second by capitalizing on the differences between German Nationalists and political Zionists; and the third which is to result from the manipulation of the differences between Zionists and Arabs. In 'The New World Order and the Throne of the Antichrist' Des Griffin has shown that in the Second World War Roosevelt and Eisenhower repeatedly held back the advance of the American troops to allow the capital cities of central Europe to fall into Soviet hands: Prague, Budapest, Vienna, Berlin, etc. Meanwhile, a number of non-military but strategic industrial targets Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, and a host of other Japanese cities were levelled, the chief reason being that the International Bankers and Financiers wanted to use the military power of the Allies to level these cities so that they could rebuild them after the War to their own image and likeness. The three main Illuminati families are Rothschild in Europe, Rockefeller in the United States, and a Canadian family - actually five families operating as one - that is known but which has not yet been named publicly. The Canadian families are not Jewish.
The plans for those world wars were described in detail in a series of letters between Freemason Albert Pike and Guiseppe Mazzoni in about 1870 or 1871. They described WWI and WWII in such detail that the letters were considered fakes written after the events.
However, the letters were available to public viewing in the British Museum (I think) until about 1979.
Generational planning. And that's why all the salami slice erosions of freedoms now (e.g., 9/11, intrusive searches at airports; mass shooting in New Zealand, gun ban; ditto UK; trucker protest Canada, bank accounts frozen and CBDCs on the way) may seem a legitimate to whatever threat at the time, but I suspect that as the NWO stomps its jackboot on your face it will be able to do so precisely because we have no means to fight back.
Rothchild and Rockefeller; two piles of shite.
Good stuff Frank, you're my favorite marginal crank.
When every necessary word has been said, further words are unnecessary. Thank you, Frank, blessings on you and comfort to you.
Excellent essay, Frank. We shall return to the good ways, as the cyclicality of our world always knows where to go
Thanks for the Pascendi tab--very helpful!
I would not have got on to that were it not for you. Thank you Stan!
Fantastic work as usual Mr. Wright 👏🏼
Thank you Mr. Verstraete!
Having first come across you through the ten-minute viral clip from the Restore rally, I initially assumed I was watching another angry internet personality. The clip, however, resonated enough for me to watch your interview with Peter McCormack and then spend some time reading your articles, particularly The Technique of Revolution.
To my own surprise, I find myself agreeing with perhaps 90% of your diagnosis of modern political and social life. The hollowing out of institutions, the century of sales, consumerism, the loss of meaning, the weakening of community and the inability of our elites to speak honestly about what is happening all strike me as real phenomena rather than inventions.
It is precisely because I find much of your diagnosis compelling that I feel obliged to ask some questions.
Your viral clip has placed you front and centre. Whether intentionally or not, you are increasingly becoming one of the public voices associated with the wider Restore coalition. With that influence comes some responsibility for what happens next. As someone who is broadly sympathetic to many of the concerns being raised, but who remains deeply uneasy about some possible downstream consequences, I think these questions are worth asking.
Firstly, I wonder whether you are deliberately conflating progressivism with classical liberalism. In your writing and in the McCormack interview, liberalism, consumerism and progressivism often appear as manifestations of a single revolutionary process. Yet my own understanding is that contemporary progressivism owes much more to postmodern and critical theories than to classical liberalism. Indeed, many critics of modern progressivism appeal precisely to classical liberal principles in opposition to it. Is this conflation intentional, or do you genuinely see no meaningful distinction between the two traditions?
Secondly, you frequently speak of man as possessing an essential and unchanging nature. I understand this in relation to questions of biological sex, where an essentialist position appears coherent, but when extended to humanity in general I become less certain. Human beings today are physically different from previous generations, live considerably longer, and anthropologically have changed enormously. Is your position primarily theological, rooted in Catholic thought, or are there other philosophers and traditions which have shaped this understanding? More fundamentally, what exactly remains fixed?
Thirdly, despite your hostility towards Marxism, I cannot help noticing that much of your analysis appears structurally Marxian. Marx saw false consciousness produced by capitalism and a conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Your analysis sees false consciousness produced by liberal consumerism and a conflict between elites and ordinary people. The conclusions differ, but the explanatory grammar feels surprisingly similar. Is that resemblance merely superficial, or do you consciously acknowledge some debt to that mode of analysis?
Fourthly, in your interview with Peter McCormack, I was struck by your clear rejection of violence and vigilantism. I found that reassuring. Yet politics does not end with our own intentions. Even if I do not regard you as racist, and I do not, it seems uncontroversial that some elements within the wider coalition attracted to Restore hold views that are overtly racial or extremist. Given the existential language often employed about civilisational collapse and betrayal, how do you think about responsibility for possible downstream consequences? How do you distinguish between legitimate warnings and rhetoric which might inadvertently licence more destructive tendencies in others?
Fifthly, I find myself wrestling with the question of agency. Much of your work implies that ordinary people have been seduced by the century of sales and trapped within a false consciousness created by consumer liberalism. But what if millions of people are simply acting out their preferences? What if they genuinely want Amazon deliveries, cheap imports, convenience and the freedoms that accompany modern life? To what extent are people victims of systems, and to what extent are they suffering the consequences of their own choices? And if the problem partly resides in human beings themselves rather than the structures surrounding them, why should we expect changing those structures to produce fundamentally different outcomes?
Sixthly, you often argue that under liberalism our rights amount to whatever the liberal elite says they are. Fair enough. But given your evident Catholic commitments, I wonder what replaces that arrangement. Is the answer ultimately that society should ground itself in Catholic moral teaching? If so, why should the authority of the Church be regarded as less coercive or more legitimate than the authority exercised by liberal institutions? One of the historical achievements of liberalism, rightly or wrongly, was partly to free society from ecclesiastical domination. Why is replacing one moral authority with another not simply exchanging one form of suppression for another?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you quoted Augustine in your conversation with Peter McCormack. That caught my attention. Yet Augustine's anthropology strikes me as considerably darker and more symmetrical than much modern political thought. Augustine seems to locate corruption not principally in institutions, ideologies or elites, but within man himself. He appears to deny innocence to everyone. If that is true, then liberalism may simply be one manifestation of a deeper and more universal human condition.
If Augustine is right, then perhaps no amount of law and order, immigration policy, moral exhortation or even religious restoration can ultimately deliver us from ourselves. We may create better and worse arrangements, but not innocent ones.
I ask these questions not as a hostile critic, but because I suspect many prospective Restore supporters are asking themselves similar things.
You have largely convinced me that something has gone badly wrong.
I am simply less certain that we agree on why.
Your classical liberalism is just a part and yet another stage of the problem, i.e the dissolution of western Christian civilisation that started as far back as the middle ages with the nominalists and their attack on realist or universalist metaphysics. Before a revolution becomes social and cultural it must first be metaphysical and spiritual/religious. A book like that of Richard Weaver " ideas have consequences " can be a starting point to explore this subject.
Thank you for the response and the recommendation. I had never heard of Weaver, so I have been trying to get my head around the broad shape of the argument.
As I understand it, the claim is that the real mistake was made with the nominalists and that everything after that is basically the working out of that error. Fair enough, but that raises a few questions.
Firstly, does that really mean that everything since Ockham has just been one long decline? Have there genuinely been no improvements to the conditions of ordinary people's lives along the way? If there have been, why wouldn't we identify particular wrong turns rather than conclude that leaving home in the first place was the mistake?
Secondly, what if the nominalists were right? What if the problem isn't that we abandoned essential truth, but that there never was some metaphysical scaffolding holding everything together in the first place? In that case, perhaps the issue isn't false consciousness or corruption of reality, but simply that human beings are trying to create meaning and value for themselves and, being human, we are a bit shit at it.
Thirdly, why are we assuming that people before nominalism lived spiritually richer lives? The idea of a stable moral order strikes me as possibly a bit mythical. Most people lived hard lives of labour, disease and insecurity, and if they seriously questioned the prevailing order the consequences could be severe. From ground level, how do we know they were more fulfilled rather than simply more unified?
I suppose my underlying question is whether modernity is best understood as one long story of decline, or whether every age solves some problems, creates others and leaves the next generation trying to sort out the consequences.
Mark,
Wow you have a lot of questions.
I would suggest that you find a fundamental issue with the current Institutions, go confront them, get completely destroyed like me, get everything taken from you even those that you love, and then that which really matters in your heart will become very very clear.
Frank! This is some of your best writing. 👌 Keep it up sir. A pleasure to read.
Your posting clears the way for sanity , courage and action Frank.
Blessings from Sydney Australia.